#do something so appalling that people institutionalize me

[masterofd1saster]

CJ court watch 3may22

By now you've probably heard that an SCt insider leaked a draft copy of the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. [Docket linked.]

The draft sure looks like a majority opinion written by J. Alito.

SCt promptly published a press release:

For Immediate ReleaseFor Further Information Contact:May 3, 2022Patricia McCabe [phone]

Yesterday, a news organization published a copy of a draft opinion in a pending case. Justices circulate draft opinions internally as a routine and essential part of the Court’s confidential deliberative work. Although the document described in yesterday’s reports is authentic, it does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., provided the following statement:

To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed. The work of the Court will not be affected in any way.

We at the Court are blessed to have a workforce – permanent employees and law clerks alike – intensely loyal to the institution and dedicated to the rule of law. Court employees have an exemplary and important tradition of respecting the confidentiality of the judicial process and upholding the trust of the Court. This was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants who work here.

I have directed the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the source of the leak.

Bari Weiss notes

***

Institutionally. I know several people who have clerked for the Court. And because I am, like every journalist, utterly and shamelessly nosy, I have pressed all of them to share their personal anecdotes about the mysterious men and women in black robes. Sure, they’d share fun details about pick-up basketball, or the famously warm relationship between Scalia and RBG. Maybe, years after the fact, they’d tell a highly curated, well-rehearsed story. But the idea of breathing a word about the actual workings of the court, about a decision that had not yet been made public—that would have appalled every single one of these people, liberal and conservative alike. ***

To my mind, though, the question of what this leak means for the institution of the Supreme Court is the most profound one. That is because it captures, in a single act, what I believe is the most important story of our moment: the story of how American institutions became a casualty in the culture war. The story of how no institution is immune. Not our universities, not our medical schools, not legacy media, not technology behemoths, not the federal bureaucracy. Not even the highest court in the land.

The Supreme Court was always the most cloistered governmental institution in America—the one where wisdom and precedent and reverence for our great constitutional tradition outweighed everything else. If there was something sacred that remained, this was it. Yes, there have been leaks from the Court before. But as Politico pointed out, last night’s leak was historic, and not in a good way: “No draft decision in the modern history of the court has been disclosed publicly while a case was still pending.” 

I called up one of the smartest professors I know at one of the top law schools in the country, and he echoed that: “To my knowledge, it’s never happened before in the modern history of the court. It is the most serious possible breach.”

Serious, severe, shocking, he said. But in the end, not surprising. Why not? Here’s how he put it: “To me, the leak is not surprising because many of the people we’ve been graduating from schools like Yale are the kind of people who would do such a thing.” 

What did he mean by that? “They think that everything is violence. And so everything is permitted.”

He went on: “I’m sure this person sees themselves as a whistleblower. What they don’t understand is that, by leaking this, they violate the trust that is necessary to maintain the institution.”

Perhaps some of you feel that the institution had already been betrayed. That the Court, long before this leak or this explosive decision, had already been diminished. Maybe the refusal to consider Merrick Garland put you over the edge. Or maybe it was the revelations about Clarence Thomas’s wife and January 6th. Or maybe it was the Kavanaugh hearings. How he was grilled. Or that he was nominated. Or maybe it was earlier: Bush v. Gore or Anita Hill or Robert Bork. no

This feels different than all of that. Why? Because all of those other instances were moments of outrage bookended by long periods of sobriety and seriousness. They were the exceptions that proved the rule. Now, everything seems to have been turned upside down, and the outrage, the uncontrollable or unslakable partisan fury, seems to have overtaken everything. Our sense of history, our respect for the institution, for norms, for even more basic human things: like trust, devotion, privacy, integrity. Jonathan Turley put it this way late last night: “There appears no ethical rule or institutional interest that can withstand this age of rage.”

To the jaded and hardened who have already crossed over into this new age—an age in which power and winning are the only tests of virtue, and the old ideas, like civility and respect, now seem twee—the leak might seem normal or even necessary. But it is nothing more than the most recent salvo in our race to the bottom.

[gleedegrassi-bigfan]

The ableism inherent in Constantin’s words to Nora is so enraging, but absolutely realistic, in character and representative of the societal norm. I walk around every day as a disabled person and see ableism everywhere I look, mostly implicit ableism that is hidden in words like crazy. It’s a small word, but it carries the weight of institutionalization, stigma, and even sexism/misogyny. And most importantly, it screams out to whoever hears it that the person saying it hasn’t worked to unlearn their biases, hasn’t listened to disabled people, and is living with the ableism that is so built into our society.

So while it is appalling to hear Constantine’s words to Nora and the ableism of it all sets an uncomfortable fire in my stomach that reminds me of the ableism I face daily— while all that is true, it also makes me hopeful that Druck will do something here. They have presented Constantine as wrong and hurtful. If they continue to do so and if they work to call out the ableism in her actions, they will be doing truly exceptional work that will make a difference in the disability media landscape.

Even if this season isn’t about disability, Nora isn’t a member of the disability community and/or no one on the show is (yet🤞), Druck still has the power to do something laced with progress this season or in future seasons by actively calling out language like that of Constantin in this clip.

Many definitions of ableism include the fact that you do don’t have to be disabled to be affected by ableism. This is true in a very nuanced way because ableism is commonly used as the foundation for racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. 

Nora, who is not disabled as far as we know, doesn’t have to be disabled for these words to affect her because ableism is being used as a weapon of sexism and general hatred against her. So, therefore, Druck could very well address these kinds of words and actions as the harmful force they are, even drawing upon the truth of their ableism to do so. This can happen— and should happen— with or without a disabled character. 

Though, to be fair, Nora could be experiencing anxiety and other mental health symptoms. This could point to mental illness (which is technically a disability, by some definitions) or not— she is living through a very stressful situation, facing a lot of pressure and being forced to carry the weight of far more than a 16-year-old girl should have to. So the jury is still out and that is perfectly okay, as will whatever does end up being Nora’s disability status. 

The important thing the acknowledgement of ableism when it appears. I don’t know for sure that Druck will address Constantin’s harms as the ableist actions they are, but I certainly hope that Druck does. Especially if this becomes a pattern, as I could see it becoming as the season plays out or as the seasons of this next gen play out. 

But if nothing else, I am always glad to turn to the fandom and see the acknowledgment of these sorts of things. The illumination of ableism is too important to not do the work yourself while waiting for media to also do the same. 

I am personally excited to continue watching, enjoying, and engaging with Druck as I wait. 

#druck #ableism #druck meta #druck next gen #nora machwitz #constantine #me spelling his name right is a miracle and tbh i don't think i also got it right in this post #always here to use that disability media lens #i have more thoughts but we'll stop here for now #druck disability rep

[jewish-privilege]

...One of the most devastating aspects of Labour’s antisemitism crisis has been seeing the sheer volume of people I like, respect, even consider friends, denying or minimising this issue which has caused me so much personal devastation. Tweet after tweet from moderates and pals, suggestions that people who don’t hold their nose and vote for Labour are “idiots” or “as bad as Tories” or “responsible for homelessness”. I will speak more about this at the end of the article, if you get that far. Knowing what I know about Labour and antisemitism and seeing it so callously disregarded by people I hugely respect has been one of the most tiring and demoralising things I’ve ever been through.

I have done my best to approach this as dispassionately as possible, but it has been very difficult. I am passionate. I am angry. I am hurt. I am frightened. Most of all, I am utterly exhausted. This article has taken over a week, a team of dedicated volunteer researchers and fact checkers (who I cannot thank enough for their time and energy) and the very last of my reserves.

I am glad it has done so, because while I was writing this piece, Jewish Labour Movement’s redacted submission to the EHRC (The Equality and Human Rights Commission, currently investigating the Labour Party for institutional antisemitism) was leaked. I will address the damning report, which can be read in full here, later in the article...

First of all to address the far-right point, I share that frustration. One of the worst things to come of this is that on occasion, some of the most horrific people have come out to disingenuously defend us. People with Britain First in their Twitter bios. People who clearly have no sincere interest in combatting antisemitism. Sometimes I have seen others share Islamophobic sources or share platforms with problematic people in order to defend this issue and it has caused me a lot of pain and frustration.

The reason this frustrates me so much is that it makes people think they have the right to undermine the fact that there is a very real and very alarming issue. It paints things erroneously as Labour vs the right and conflates the right with Jews. It drowns out Jewish voices who are genuinely afraid and gets them lost in a sea of confusing noise. It gives ammunition to the idea that Labour antisemitism is all smears to divide politically. It also means some good people become hypocrites in their frustration. It means they are willing to overlook problematic aspects from those willing to defend them. I am not one of those people. Maybe life would be easier if I was.

But as I say the reason this “Jews vs the left” narrative is so frustrating is that it’s not true. The word “weaponised” is thrown around a lot, and perhaps there are some people guilty of doing so, but they would not be able to do that without something to weaponise. I am Jewish, I am left-wing and I have examined the evidence for myself and come to the conclusion that Labour, enabled by Corbyn, has become institutionally antisemitic. Many others like me have done the same. It is appalling to disregard our voices because problematic characters have also picked up on the issue, just as it would be, for example, appalling to disregard the Palestinian cause because it has also been championed by some of the characters you’ll read about below...

Corbyn has a personal problematic history of racist associations and remarks. It has also become clear that his leadership team, and on occasions Corbyn himself, have been complicit in letting their mates off the hook, burying or capitulating on important cases and allowing the issue to become embedded at an institutional level. However, alongside the institutional issues, a culture of antisemitism and conspiracy theories about Jews and Jewish identity have been spread and promoted over the last four years in and around the Labour Party. This has been spearheaded by alt/new-left media sites such as The Canary and Skwawkbox, high-profile Twitter accounts which purport to support the leadership, and huge echo chambers on Facebook where people share posts to reinforce those views. The result is toxic culture of antisemitism and its associated denial which has seen the mainstreaming of antisemitism into British public life in a way that Jews here have never seen before.

...It means I’ve spent four years seeing a headline in a newspaper or an accusation in a tweet and digging into the background of each thing to ensure its veracity & that it’s not an overreach or overreaction before I share it or consider it as part of the overall picture. I never want to be someone who simply grabs a pitchfork or acts on a grudge and I spend a lot of time arguing with myself before I reach a conclusion on anything. Over four years of new evidence and incidents emerging on a daily basis, this has become a rather exhausting pursuit...

----

This is a long but well-sourced piece. For everyone who has replied to any post or comment about the UK Labour party’s antisemitism with “Where? What antisemitism? It’s just anti-Zionism at best!”, read this. 

[ritualpurposes]

Why History is Important

This week has been a week of terrible takes on History, Politics and how the two intersect. From the appalling article in the Telegraph on how the “woke masses” are trying to sabotage Britain’s history (I won’t give this the dignity of a link, but it is easy enough to find), the continued harassment and vilification of Dr Corinne Fowler for her work on the Colonial Countryside Project, to the release of the utterly disgusting 1776 commission in the US and as always, the plethora of ‘hot takes’ on Tumblr, I am seething with rage.

This is a long one, apologies. I won’t go into Tumblrs approach to history, that has been better covered by others here, and here and honestly this rant is long enough as is. 

Archaeology and history are inherently political, that is an inescapable fact. People are quick to turn up their noses at the subject of the past and say it has no bearing on the present, but that is a simplistic fantasy. The present is always built of the back of the past, our attitudes, our justifications, our worldviews are all artifacts of what has come before. And when our understanding of what came before is, shall we charitably say, flawed, that is dangerous. The links between the alt. right, white supremacy and fake, white –washed, hyper masculine ideas of the past are well documented. Many of these people justify their actions using versions of the past which to them are very real, ideas of a white ethno-state where the men were Men™. It should be noted, this isn’t a modern phenomenon, I’m pretty sure anyone who has had to sit through intro to archaeology has had to listen to at least once lecture on how Hitler used pseudo archaeology to justify his actions. And while academics can point out that Roman Britain was not white, or that the Vikings traded and intermarried with people from North Africa, these attempts are hindered, both by popular perceptions of the past, and by this idea that the left are attempting to rewrite history.

I find that last point difficult really to deal with, because it combines two opposing ideas, that historians want to make the past more ‘politically correct’ but also downplay the ‘greatness’ of whatever nation they are talking about by talking about the distinctly not political correct bits of history (colonialism and slavery).  There is this overwhelming idea that adding any sort of nuance is the result of massive bias. And that any history that doesn’t make your nation look 100% the Heroic Good Guys is part of some sort of plot to undermine national pride and patriotism. The Tories are terrified we might remove statues of slavers, but in the same breath attack the National Trust for trying to talk about the Colonial legacies of their properties.

I think at this point it’s also worth discussing the difference between history and commemoration.  I am 100% in support of removing statues, and of renaming streets etc. These things are not history, they are commemoration. History is found in museums, in books, in scholarship. History is knowledge, it is not objects but the context that surrounds them.  The removal of a statue does not equal rewriting history, a statue, while an archaeologically interesting artifact, does not in and of itself tell us much. Its context is far more revealing. There is an idea in archaeology called object biography, that looks at how items change in meaning and use throughout their ‘lives’. Items are not static, just like ideas are not static. In the 19th century that statue meant something very different to the people who are around today. What we commemorate, and what commemorations we destroy tell us about society. If the history of Edward Coulston is so important (a man, who I had never heard of before the statue was thrown into the river, so clearly not a priority in English history), then put the statue in a museum with an information board. And if you are really worried about the destruction of history? Why don’t you spend your time and money instead ensuring archaeological work gets done ahead of development or making sure history departments are adequately funded. Interesting, the Torries, while very concerned about statues, are actively fighting those two measures. I know less about the Republican agenda, but looking at the 1776 project, I’m pretty sure that any concern they have for history is less about the past and more about preserving the status quo.

I grew up in America. I took AP US history, and I remember having to write papers about how the Civil War was absolutely not about Slavery. I guess that doesn’t seem that harmful in and of itself, but let’s trace this bit of revisionism through shall we. The Civil war was over States rights, that doesn’t sound too bad. I mean I may not agree with the South, but is it really a moral issue to say that the Federal Government shouldn’t be able to override what individual States want? After all States are very different, what is good for New York might not be so good for Georgia. Ok, so using that logic I don’t really see what’s wrong with flying a confederate flag, I mean it can’t possibly be a symbol of oppression, because the Civil War *wasn’t* about Slavery. So I don’t see why people are getting all upset, it is simply a statement that States Rights are important.

Add to this the general romanticized picture of the Confederate South in the media and you suddenly are looking at a very different picture of the past, supported by, of all things, the fucking AP US History curriculum. The Confederates are seen as tragic heroes, on the wrong side of history perhaps, but with a point, fighting for a way of life.  And from there it doesn’t seem too far a leap to what happened on January 6 does it?  I’m not saying all media should demonize the South, but I think removing Slavery from the Civil war is dangerous and false representation of History, and one that directly plays into the Civil Unrest we are seeing at the Moment.

So that brings me back to the 1776 commission. It was published as a direct response to the 1619 Project. The 1619 Project sought to center slavery and its effects on American history. This is hugely important, and a weirdly contentious issue. The echos of slavery are still present in the USA, in the form of institutionalized racism, voter suppression, and increased levels of police brutality among other things. It is, at best impossibly naive and at worst actively malicious, to try and consider US history without dealing with the brutal legacy of slavery. And yet, this project was deemed to be ‘UnAmerican’ and ‘revisionist’. How dare any history of America undermine the idea that America is, and has always been, A noble nation that has never done anything wrong ever. To return briefly to my own experiences with AP US History, our textbook said we didn’t lose Vietnam (My father who was a war correspondent in Vietnam had some things to say about that comment). The myth of American Exceptionalism runs deep. The 1776 commission, which I have not brought myself to read in its entirety, is a horrific example of it. It justifies slavery, it states that “as a question of practical politics, no durable union could have been formed without a compromise among the states on the issue of slavery.”, states racism ended in 1964, and that Christianity is the reason we have secular law.

Why does this scare the shit out of me? Why do I care what people believe happened 200 years ago? Because if people truly believe that America can do no wrong, that patriotism means never questioning that we really will live in Trump’s America. Because if Slavery was justified, and racism doesn’t exist anymore than clearly we don’t have to do better, and any complaints are communist plot.  Because if Empire really did make England Great then why should we not continue in the same vain? History is grand! Let us live in the Good Ol’ Days!

History is messy. History is unpleasant. History doesn’t fit into simple narratives of good and bad, because people don’t fit into those categories. And while I agree it is impossible to teach history without some bias (interpretation being a key part), we need to accept our past. If we want a brighter future we need to confront where we come from. We need to fight the false narratives prevalent in our culture, be they the idea that Game of Thrones is a good picture of Medieval England or that the Civil War was over a simple ideological difference and not the lives of thousands of enslaved peoples. The best bit of advice on history I ever got was from my high school teacher “If you want to live in the past you haven’t been paying attention”, I think about that statement a lot. The past has power, let us not pretend otherwise.

#History #Archaeology #America #England #1619 project #1776 project #psudoarchaeoloy #archaology #current events #Culture wars #Personal I guess

[urfavmurtad]

Hi there! I really like your blog, I'm from a religious family myself and struggling with a lot of similar things. I'm Jewish though, from an Orthodox family, not Muslim. I have always wanted to ask someone this, but I never wanted to offend them, so let me ask you (I hope you will not be offended!), why does it seem like there is so much hatred of Jews in many Muslim countries? It is just because of Israel? Because to me it seems like hatred *of Jews*, not just *of Israel*.

Hello anon, I am glad to hear it. I’ve always lowkey wanted Jewish followers to talk to me but idk how to say that without it being weird??

Antisemitism…. yeah it’s a real thing tbh. And yes it targets Jews, not just Israel. The Jew-hating screeds are all very clearly against the “yahud” (Jews). At least in Arab countries. Though I just looked it up and it seems fairly widespread in Muslim countries in general (this is from here).

I mean… even compared to other non-Muslim groups, there is obviously a big problem here, except in Pakistan where people admirably hate everyone equally.

Israel does have something/a lot to do with it, there’s no doubt about that. Not to justify any antisemitism, but there is a clear association between Israel and Jews, and a clear association between Israel and Muslim oppression. Most of these same people would howl if anyone dared blame their religious group for the actions of one government, of course…. but the roots of it go deeper than that, and are older than most of us want to acknowledge. We pretend it’s not true, but antisemitism did not magically spring up in the 20th century.

The idea that Jews were treated well throughout all of Muslim history is a big lie that we’re indoctrinated into believing. Arab kids everywhere, whether they’re religious or not, are genuinely taught that Jews and other religious minorities were happy under Arab rule, and generally “Muslim rule” in the MENA region, until The Zionists came around. We’re taught from kindergarten that there was no anti-Semitism in Muslim countries before this, that the concept was Western. It is something said so frequently and with such conviction that few people ever think about it.

This is a lie, of course. There were massacres, institutionalized oppression and discrimination, forced conversions, and genocides all throughout MENA history. As in Europe, some eras and places were better than others. Often the situation deteriorated rapidly. The Jews were sometimes targeted for religious reasons, sometimes because they were perceived to be too wealthy or corrupt, sometimes because they were seen as too friendly to outsiders or traitorous. Even in “good” times, daily discrimination and often even humiliation persisted; the “dhimmi laws” were often petty and cruel, from wearing distinctive clothing to having court testimony automatically count less due to your religion. It was not an era of tolerant coexistence, though admittedly Jewish and Christian minorities often traded places as the bottom of the religious ladder (as in under the Ottomans). It’s just that the history is virtually unknown by Arabs themselves. I had no idea about any of this until I was maybe 15, 16 and got curious and looked it up. But many never even think to question it.

When times got really bad, the reasons were usually the same as the reasons for anti-Semitic pogroms in Europe. The Jews were perceived as too wealthy or influential, like in al-Andalus in a lynch mob in 1066 or a near-total extermination in Fez in 1465. They were blamed for war struggles, like a genocide in Yemen in the 17th century. They were caught up in periods of religious vigor like a series of forced conversionsin 19th century Sudan and 12th century Cordoba. Of course, the mass exiles and depopulations of Arab countries in the 20th century after Israel was declared a state was its own unique sort of discrimination. And now most Israeli Jews are descended from the people who were kicked out of those countries… because of Israel. Arabs creating their own damn problems as per usual smh.

Anyway, to relate this back to the topic at hand, the question seems to be more about Islam than Arabs as a group. So the question is, is there antisemitism within the religious texts of Islam that might help give rise to these feelings of hating Jews among Muslims in general (vs just among Arabs). The answer is yes. The Quran itself is antisemitic. Mohammed really goddamn hated the Jewish tribes around him in his Medina days and it shows. The entire fifth surah is one long Borat rant about The Jews. I mean, he didn’t like any non-Muslims, but the Jews really get the shit end of the stick in the Medina suwar. 5:82 literally says that the Jews and polytheists are ones who treat Muslims the worst whereas the Christians (while still doomed to hell!) are not as bad.

It says (multiple times) not to take Jews or Christians as auliya (allies/helpers/friends), it calls Jews greedy and deceitful, it frequently blames Jews for the misdeeds of past generations like killing “the prophets” (which does not include Jesus, incidentally, the Jews only thought they killed him… actually no one really knows wtf prophets he was talking about but that’s a separate story). Their beliefs are mocked repeatedly, often when Mohammed didn’t even get their beliefs correct. He was particularly obsessed with the notion of Allah’s continued punishment of the Jews for the disbelieving actions of Moses’ followers, saying that they had to keep kosher as a “punishment”. Another tale from Moses’ day was the oft-repeated story of how Allah transformed Sabbath-breaking Jews into apes and pigs, a story that kids who attend Islamic schools will hear like 500 times by the time they graduate, as the Quran relates this punishment to Mohammed’s contemporary Jews who rejected his message.

So… it’s bad, is the point. The ahadith are even worse but I don’t want to overwhelm you lmao, you can just sort of… browse through them at your leisure. I’m sure you’ve at least heard this one before. And yes, much of it is repeated as “the truth” even today. Some very well-meaning people will try to fight against this by saying “context!!!” etc, but Mohammed’s rants were against, simply, the Jews, often in a multi-generational, multi-cultural sense. Not… military-age male fighters and evildoers of the Banu Nadir and Banu Qurayza tribes of the time (both of which were Jewish and met appalling ends; the “Khaybar” dumbass rallying cries you hear sometimes are in reference to a battle against them). So while it’s truly nice that they’re at least trying to stamp out religious-based antisemitism, it’s unclear to me if they have much of a leg to stand on here…

Uh, this is a lot longer than I thought it was gonna be lmao but I hope I answered your question? Please come off anon and talk to me, if you want, bc there’s so much I want to know about a lot of Jewish-related topics and idk where to even begin!

#ask #ex muslim #rant #antisemitism

[schraubd]

On Asking Jews To Be More Anti-Nazi

The second job I wanted to be when I grew up was a cartoonist (the first was omelet chef at a Marriott. Little kids have weird goals). I loved Calvin & Hobbes, and later Dilbert, Doonesbury, Foxtrot, The Boondocks, and many others. My ambition, alas, quickly foundered against the reality that I have no artistic talent whatsoever. But occasionally I still draw cartoons in my head (where their artistry and technical virtues are unimpeachable). My most recent imagined cartoon is set in Auschwitz, 1944, where a portal opens up and a time-traveler steps through. It is a literal "Social Justice Warrior" -- from the future, armed to the teeth, and ready and eager to "punch some Nazis". After completing his task, some Jewish inmates approach to thank him for rescu-- BAM! He clocks them too. "Did I say 'Zio-Nazis excepted'?" I was thinking about this after reading this tweet by Ferrari Sheppard, where he says "Can't be anti Nazi pro Israel."

Can't be anti Nazi pro Israel.

— Ferrari Sheppard (@stopbeingfamous) August 13, 2017

I read that tweet, in turn, shortly after reading this thread by Sophie Ellman-Golan urging White Jews to "join" the fight against the neo-Nazi resurgence we saw in Charlottesville.

To white Jews alarmed by #Charlottesville: this is the movement. Join it. It will fight for us, but we have to fight for Black folks too.

— Sophie Ellman-Golan (@EgSophie) August 13, 2017

It is, she says, a fight Jewish institutions have been "shamefully late" in adopting as our own. I reflect on this, and I'm torn. My thoughts are scattered; they fly all over the place. Consider the ADL -- called out by name by Ellman-Golan. I recall excoriating them for selling out liberal Jews in their appalling silence on David Friedman's "kapo" comments. Then I think of the immense pressure the ADL has come under from the right, which accuses it of taking too hard a line on right-wing racism. I remember the shamefully equivocating tweet ADL chief Jonathan Greenblatt put out yesterday, drawing equivalence between Nazi and "antifa" violence. Then I remember the following tweet thread which was so much better. I also remember how a sizable chunk of the negative responses to Greenblatt's original equivocation somehow managed to work "Israel" into the message -- because that's what it's always about, isn't it? I consider how it seems many of the ADL's critics are eager, even happy, to infer the worst about it. They like the idea of "Jews who don't really oppose Nazis". They seem to revel in the idea that the Jews aren't anti-Nazi to their satisfaction. The Jewish community -- institutionally and otherwise -- is a varied and diverse bunch. That variation and diversity applies as much to our presence in social justice organizing as anything else. The explanations for this diversity will be similarly varied. After all, I, too, have written fusillades decrying the tepidity of many Jewish groups in calling out the ascendant tide of right-wing racism. So clearly I concur there's a problem here. At the same time, I also think that there's something truly grating at the idea that Jews have to prove themselves "anti-Nazi." Mia Steinberg wrote something very telling about how this debate plays out for Jews: "Instead of 'would I have stood up to Nazis in WW2', the thought experiment for me has always been 'would I have survived?'" The Holocaust was not an arena for Jews to prove our moral valor, and when our reaction to Nazism doesn't adopt appropriately heroic tones that is not proof of Jewish "complicity" in anything. The celerity with which people seem eager to tell Jews we're the new Nazis, or we don't care about Nazis, or we're not responding to Nazis in a way that gives non-Jews sufficient confidence that we're really anti-Nazi, is degrading and infuriating. Yet again -- I can't fully go down that road either. Surely, the groups like ZOA who have explicitly lined up behind the Trump/Bannon alt-right wing have no moral legs to stand upon. And even as I bow to no one in downplaying the seriousness of the growing clouds of antisemitism, Ellman-Golan is simply right -- I refuse to tolerate people denying this -- that in its current manifestation in the United States Black people are more violently targeted by the forces of White supremacy than are Jews. That doesn't mean Jews aren't targeted, and aren't targeted in ways that are worthy of genuine fear and concern. But it is not wrong for there to be a focus on racist violence, so long as that focus doesn't come via denying the reality of antisemitic violence. But  (once more around, and here's where I really want to land) can we honestly say -- unblinking, looked-in-the-eye, full-stop -- that when Jews don't throw themselves into these movements that the primary explanation ought to be "because Jews don't care about Nazism"? Can we be so confident that the movements in question "will fight for us"? The fact of the matter is, too often Jews -- from Chicago Dyke March to Creating Change to Slutwalk -- do try to participate in these movements, and are cast out, or turned aside, or subjected to humiliating ideological litmus tests where we're guilty until proven anti-Zionist. That's part of the reason -- not the sole reason, but part of the story -- why I shy away from protest movements. I don't know that they "will fight for us". That is not something that simply can be wedged into our presuppositions as a demanded default. Much the opposite:

As a Jew, I can't completely cheer at these expressions of left-wing activism because I know there is a real and non-negligible risk that in that crowd someone wants to say the whole thing they're fighting against is a Zionist plot, and there is a real and non-negligible risk that if that person gets a hold of the mic and says so the crowd will erupt in cheers. 

It grates when this is denied, when people act as if the only reason Jews "don't show up" for social justice (to the extent that we don't) is because we're too indifferent or too fragile or too embedded in our own privilege to really care. Such a view doesn't take seriously real practices of exclusion; it assumes them away because it takes "they will fight for us" as an axiom rather than a (often quite dubious) proposition that must be demonstrated. It's the "why do all the black people sit together in the cafeteria" question of Jewish social activism. If Jews are "late" to the social activist party -- and I don't necessarily concede that we are -- perhaps part of the reason is that social convention requires a truly grotesque amount of preparation, costuming, covering, hedging, eliding, and self-effacing before the Jew is admitted through the doors. It's exhausting. And it's hard to blame people for not wanting to show up, when those requirements are allowed to persist unexamined. Finally, when talking of these exclusions we should be clear that this is not even primarily, let alone solely, a POC thing. Indeed, Black people in America have consistently demonstrated their intolerance of antisemitism and their willingness to stand with Jews against antisemitism even in their own community. That history has to be part of the story too. The story of Black-Jewish relations simply isn't -- much as conservative hagiographers might wish it so -- one of self-sacrificing Jews altruistically defending civil rights only to be sold down the river by ungrateful African-Americans who dived headfirst into antisemitic conspiracy-mongering. What it boils down to is this:

Jews are genuinely threatened by the rise of the alt-right. This is a movement that affects us in a real, tangible way -- not as allies, not as "fragile" White people, but as a vulnerable group that is genuinely imperiled by these social forces. Acting as if Jews don't have skin in this game is a form of antisemitism denial.

Currently, the tangible manifestations of extreme-right identity politics have a greater impact on the material conditions of black and brown lives than they do that of White Jews. That assessment in no way falsifies the first bullet point.

All non-Jews, to varying degrees, benefit from the social privileges and prerogatives that exist under conditions of antisemitic domination. This assessment in now way falsifies the second bullet point, it merely establishes a kyriarchical relationship where (in the contemporary American context) racial domination has greater punch than also-extant antisemitic domination does.

The relationship between (proximately-European) Jews and Whiteness is a complex one. Such Jews clearly do not enjoy an unadulterated White privilege (as the seething hatred of White supremacists makes clear). But it is also clear that we enjoy a great many of these privileges and prerogatives on a day-to-day basis. While possession of these privileges does not falsify the existence of antisemitism, neither does experiencing antisemitism falsify the existence of these privileges.

Some Jewish groups have been derelict in their duties to combat this right-wing menace. It is our obligation as Jews to insist that our communal representatives fight against far-right extremist movements both because they threaten us as Jews and because they threat others -- Black people, brown people, queer people, and more -- who may or may not be Jewish.

To the extent that some Whites Jews haven't partaken in anti-right resistance movements in the stock ways typically demanded of White allies, the explanations that apply to White people generally who don't "show up" are not always inapposite. But they are frequently incomplete, and a serious conversation needs to be had about the politics of antisemitic exclusion that afflicts Jews who very much do wish to be involved in left-wing activist spaces or otherwise participate in contemporary progressive politics. This conversation cannot take "they will fight for us" as an axiomatic entitlement.

Do these not fully fit together? Then they don't fully fit together. As I said, I'm torn. I don't claim to fully fit together on this.

via The Debate Link http://ift.tt/2uBzEN4

#anti-semitism #Black #far-right #leftists #nazis #progressives #racism #white supremacy #Whites

[digitalwhatever]

The paranoid style is back, and better than ever

I know I’ve said this ad nauseam in these pages, but oh man are we in trouble as a nation. We find ourselves today in such an extremely ugly place, in the post-Obama era—an era riddled with hysteria, paranoia, division, hatred, extremism disguised as normal discourse. In fact, thanks to Fox news and the public institutions of hysteria (Rush Limbaugh, et al) much of what once might have been considered radical, violent, extreme or just plain socially unacceptable views or behavior is now normalized across the airwaves on a daily basis. It’s mainstream!

This trend has been exasperated by the anonymity and free expression (or rather “free of consequence” expression) allowed by the internet that leads us deeper off the cliff. Thus, here we are now, in the throws of the golden age of paranoia—a deeply shameful and disgusting time in America. Hallelujah!

So I figured this is the perfect time to go back and reread the original article “The Paranoid Style” by Richard Hofstadter (from Harper’s Magazine, 1964) which put into writing, clearly and thoughtfully for the thinking world to see a phenomenon that’s plagued the human race for centuries.

Hofstadter writes about popular movements in American history fed by conspiracy theories, and politicians who used those conspiracies to manipulate and stimulate voters’ passions. The anti-freemason movement of the late eighteenth century; the anti-catholic movement of the mid-nineteenth; the ani-shadow banker movement of the early 20th century; and of course, everyone’s favorite anti-communist frenzy of the McCarthy era. He ends on, what was then, the current rage in Paranoid Politics: the Barry Goldwater campaign, in which many of the pillars of modern conservative conspiracies were born and cemented.

But one thing I can’t help in reading about all these great moments in paranoid politics, is how quaint they are. How simple and relatively innocuous.

Hofstadter writes that one of the noteworthy developments to occur in the “modern” Goldwater era was the infusion of mass media to help fuel whatever strange and depraved messages were being brokered. Oh, but how gentle and dated the Goldwater days seem now, in comparison to today’s white hot mess. If Goldwater only had access to forces like Fox news and the internet, there’s no telling how far he could have gone. But he didn’t.

Rereading about the basic tenants of the paranoid mind and the exploitation thereof, it puts much clarity on what is happening to us now in this moment, and on how it is happening. The fears, the types of conspiracies, the invented enemies that politicians and media personalities use to manipulate voters, they come from well worn places in the human (or at least, the American white male) psyche. Capitalism is being undermined! Infiltrators from “outside” have worked their way to the highest levels of government. Backed by, and in cahoots with international radicals and powerful shadowy figureheads, they are plotting the destruction of the United States.

By the way, here’s an exercise for you: watch Fox news tonight and count how many times the say the word “socialist” in the course of a between-commercials segment. Also, how many times they pair the word “socialist” with “democrat” or “democrat party.” This is a way to get very drunk, very fast.

Even more disturbing and appalling then the actual practice is the skill with which the perpetrators of today’s paranoid politics inflict their craft. Whether it’s Trump, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, or some Russian troll farm, these people know what the fuck they’re doing.

Look at the Russian trolls of 2016, for instance. They knew the exact type of conspiracy theory to publish, the exact kinds of stories that would gain traction and be share (amplified) by their intended audience: Hillary Clinton’s missing emails. Proof she was corrupted by foreign governments—a corrupt insider who’s infiltrated the highest levels of US government! Classic stuff, right out of the pages of Hofstadter.

Our current president, despite his massive faults, nastiness and moral deprivations, is an extremely gifted Paranoid politician. He has taken the art to new heights. In fact, in most instances, it’s all he’s got.

His particular gift is language. He finds perfect little packets of words to neatly summarize, encapsulate and motivate the conspiratorial spirit:

“The system is rigged”

“Fake news”

“Witch hunt”

“Giant hoax”

He repeats these over, and over, and over.

Let us not forget as well, that this guy’s entré into the world of national politics was through the “birther” movement, which itself was something of a high paranoid achievement. The president (Obama) was actually born outside the United States and is therefore not legitimate. He’s a foreigner, hell-bent on destroying democracy, capitalism and the constitution! The fact that Obama was African American worked doubly well on the paranoid mind: the theory fit so perfectly into those warped pre-conceived paranoid notions that blackness is otherness, and that those with dark skin represent a threat to the natural order of America. It was a paranoid home run, giving rise to a whole new era of mind bogglingly delusional right-wing ranting.

Cutting his teeth on this vast and rich material, the current office holder of the presidency continues to use the dark sentiments of “birtherism” to his advantage. Another of his overused verbal bludgeons is to blame all negative things happening in our country on Obama. And weirdly, to justify any untoward practices he uses himself in office by claiming, mostly wrongly that “Obama did it!” There is no logic or reality to this, but to the paranoid mind, it all makes perfect sense.

Sadly, it’s this same deep paranoid fear of dark skin that gives fuel to one of the greatest national disgraces of our era: our current immigration policy and this ridiculous turmoil about “the Wall.” None of this nonsense would be possible if not for a broader fear of dark skin “infiltration” which has been building with the paranoid crowd over the last 10 years or so.

In fact, when you look at just about any of today’s most important political battles today, it seems that the obstacles to progress and sensible policy are built out of paranoid building blocks. Whether it’s immigration policies, stopping the epidemic of gun violence, curbing widespread sexual harassment, ensuring fair and equal voting practices, or just about any issue on the table, you encounter some very emotionally powerful appeals to the great, white, irrational mind.

For instance:

Immigration:

Dark skinned rapists are crossing the border, stealing our jobs!

Gun Violence:

Democrats and liberals want to take away our guns!

Institutionalized Sexual Harassment:

White men in this country are under attack. Liberals want to destroy our careers!

Voting Rights:

Black people, Mexicans and democrats are voting illegally! They’re stealing our elections!

Environmental Policy

Global warming is a Chinese hoax! Regulations are killing our jobs!

Healthcare:

They’re trying to import European-style socialism and destroy capitalism!

Religion:

Christians and christianity are under attack from atheists and democrats who want to dismantle your religious liberty.

Fair taxation:

Socialism!

The fact that these conspiratorial roadblocks have been in use for such a long time and have been set in high-repeat mode puts us in a very tricky situation.

These paranoid sentiments are no longer loony-bin, fringe and weirdo rantings. They have become a standard, acceptable form of mainstream political discourse. People are using them ad nauseam to distort and short-circuit any type of rational political debate.

The birth of a new Rational Movement in politics

Rereading Hofstadter's original article, and working through some of my thoughts have helped tremendously to give me a sense of clarity towards our current political predicament.  It’s also helped to clarify some thoughts about a possible way out of this mess.

Here’s what I hope to see: some politician, or several politicians really, thought leaders, public voices, personalities, spokespeople from all walks of life and political persuasions, rising up from the current crop to begin a massive, persistent de-bunking and re-framing campaign.

They will need formidable language skills, guts, conviction, and god-like perseverance. The end goal: re-frame the debate. Shed light on the bizarre and out-of-whack nature of our current politics. Make it crystal clear what’s happening.

They cannot be the wonky, policy-minded politicians of today’s left, or the quirky, quick-witted personalities of MSNBC or late night TV. They cannot be merely smart people with good ideas. They need to convey the weight of truth and urgency in their words. They need to clarify in a concise, colloquial way. They need to lay it all on the table.

We are fighting against deep paranoid fears and the people who exploit such fear.

This is not a debate between left and right or liberalism versus conservatism. It’s a debate between sanity and insanity. Between rational thought, and bizarre ranting. It's a debate between very real ideas and irrational fear.

The Fox news crowd needs to be called out again and again, not as the “right” or the “right wing, but as the “paranoid right.” The two words can never be uncoupled.

Most importantly, politicians cannot pretend to debate against opponents who eschew this garbage. Call off the debates. Don’t yell at each other across the podium or from different boxes of the TV screen. Do not argue with insanity—it only serves to elevate it and make it seem like it’s a real, valid point-of-view.

At this point in time, I believe there is still a soft middle in the American electorate—people who have not yet been radicalized, polarized, marginalized, cannibalized or disenfranchised. People  who are still open to political discourse and are still capable of making decisions based on thought and information. These are the people who need to be reached and influenced. These are the people that can save our collective hides.

Of course, a few other things need to happen. For instance, Fox news needs to be put off the air once and for all. And the internet needs to be unplugged. But those are discussions for another day.

[epistolizer]

The Cultural Impact Of Worldview & Apologetics, Part 5

Sadly though, this is the age of extremes.  On the one hand, there are Christians that no doubt find Disney classics such as “Snow White”, “Sleeping Beauty”, and “Pinocchio” too racy for their tastes. And on the other, there are those professing to be Christians that cannot adopt quickly enough the popular fads and affectations of any particular moment.  One prominent example of overeager accommodation to the spirit of the time is the Emergent Church movement.  

If one is to chastise the Evangelical and Fundamentalist wings of Christianity for overly embracing social conservatism as epitomized by the Republican Party, to remain consistent one would also be required to enunciate an admonishment against the Emergent Church’s headlong  rush into what could probably be described as countercultural liberalism.  Realizing the sway postmodernism has over Western society and the power of its methodology to expose potentially hidden hypocrisies and inconsistencies, advocates of the Emerging Church believe that the wiser course may be to surf the postmodern wave on a Christian board than to firmly plant one's feet and fight against the tide.  

Emergent Church leaders such as Brian McLaren hope that the postmodernist impulse to examine and in most cases set aside the cultural assumptions often below the surface we are not aware of will assist believers to get back to the earliest expressions of the Christian faith that existed before it was institutionalized as a socio-cultural edifice. McLaren views the impact of modernity upon the Church as having been especially deleterious.  

Fundamentalists not that familiar with the direction in which McLaren takes his analysis might initially think they have found an ally in McLaren.  However, in many respects, McLaren is harder on those one might categorize as conservative Evangelicals than he is on the shortcomings of the contemporary world.  

According to McLaren, modernity in the West has fostered the desire to conqueror and control all of the structures of reality from the physical to the epistemological through the process of scientific analysis and classification. The result has been to mechanize all of existence (including human beings) to the point where the souls encountered by the Christian and the resulting relationships are not seen as ends in themselves worthy of care and nurture but rather as strategic stepping stones simply along the path to accumulating conversion statistics (230).  

Concerns raised by McLaren regarding authenticity are quite valid.  Even for those that have been Christians for years and even decades, it is easy in a megachurch setting to feel like little more than a statistic used to justify the next phase of the building expansion while in a small church it is easy to come away with the sense that one is not welcome unless one is in complete enthusiastic agreement on nonessentials if one is an average pewsitter.  However, there are a number of dangers that result from the Emergent Church's posture against dogmatism.  

According to McLaren, the modern age was marked by a quest for certainty and absolute knowledge (230). In the Church, this has manifested itself in the tendency to insist upon an exclusivity of belief that points out the deficiencies of competing faiths and emphasizes the superiority of Biblical revelation.  Of this approach to matters of theology and religion, R.Scott Smith writes, “In that process...faith tends to be treated as a rigid belief system that must be accepted instead of a unique, joyful way of living, loving, and serving (230).”  

Ideally in a world accepting of and at peace with the Gospel, that would be how Christ would be introduced to those hungering to have their sins forgiven and life more abundantly. And though the Christian must always strive to show as much respect and kindness to the unbeliever as possible, neither can it be ignored that the world has been so warped by sin that Satan is always on the prowl seeking those whom he may devour.  There are those out there that are wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing seeking to infiltrate the church for the sole purposes of destroying it.

There are things that are just plain wrong.  Both clergy and possibly even more so the laity must be on guard against them.

If the Christian does not possess an existential certainty  that makes the leap of faith from the ledge of high factual probability, though one does not attend to secure salvation one can think of a number of more enjoyable ways to spend Sunday morning.  A number of these would include remaining in ones nocturnal raiment rather than slipping into the most uncomfortable garments likely hanging in one's closet.  More importantly, if one is to be of the mindset that it is improper to point out where other faiths and creeds do not measure up to Christianity, how are the young to protect themselves when these competitors attempt to lure them away? For especially when (as in the case of Islam) these outlooks have no qualms about insisting upon the superiority of their own practices and dogmas.  

To the Christian fatigued by some of extremist Fundamentalism's rules which in some circles extend to no facial hair on men despite there being no Biblical mandate for such a grooming preference, the care free times of the Emergent Church with its disdain for systematized doctrine may sound like a relief.  However, once the prospective adherent delves deeper into the movement, disillusioned Fundamentalists may discover they have merely exchanged one form of excessive control for another.  

R. Scott Smith writes in his analysis of the Emergent Church that Brian McLaren believes, "modernity has emphasized inordinately the autonomous individual ... Likewise the church has perpetuated this individualism to the detriment of the body of Christ (230).”  This assumption is itself in need of careful examination.  

If by this McLaren means that under the banner of modernity that many an individual has abused the freedoms of the contemporary world to ignore those behavioral restrictions given to us that a percentage find stifling or  inconvenient, he could very well be correct.  Yet in a Time Magazine profile naming him one of the nation‘s most prominent Evangelicals, McLaren did not seem all that concerned about the growing support for gay marriage and homosexual intimacy.  To McLaren, lamenting the advance of individuality means something else entirely.  

For example, in an interview broadcast in June 2010 on Issues Etc. with Todd Wilken, McLaren kept emphasizing that Jesus did not so much come into the world to live the sinless life that we could not, die in our place as the penalty for our sins, and rise from the dead so that we might enjoy eternal life with Him in Heaven. To McLaren, the traditional Christian emphasis of Christ’s work of reconciling the individual to God in preparation for eternity is secondary to establishing God’s Kingdom here on earth.  

To McLaren, the transforming power of Christ is not so much about the changing of the human heart one individual at a time on a level imperceptible to merely human eyes. McLaren believes that such shifts in consciousness or perception (to borrow New Age and postmodernist phraseology) need to be societal or planetary. However, such a revolution would not so much turn the world into one giant campus extension of Bob Jones University or Pensacola Christian College campus with well intentioned busybodies armed with rulers measuring to see if young men's haircuts are short enough, young ladies' hemlines long enough, and a respectable distance kept between the two sexes as they perambulate down the street.  

Things would, more likely, come to resemble a form of religious socialism where the morality of an economic decision would not be determined by how well it benefited the individual or by how closely it adhered to the explicit dictates of Scripture but instead by the criteria of how it  benefited the overall group, predetermined oppressed classes such as ethnic minorities, and whether or not the decision adhered to the consensus of the community. McLarenite Emergent Church types have often condemned how those on the Evangelical Right have long served as the dupes of the Republican Party; however, those enunciating such criticisms have turned right around and snuggled up with Christian leftists such as Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo who have little problem with homosexual domestic partnerships or professed Communists such as the Sandinistas of Nicaragua.  

In every direction the Christian turns, he finds adherents of every conceivable worldview gaining ground throughout Western civilization and around the world.  Constantly bombarded by these competing perspectives, after a while the mentally fatigued believer can grow so weary that it is easy to throw up one's hands wondering what is the point in even trying anymore. Often it is concluded that the best strategy would be to cordon ourselves off in a Christian subculture in the attempt to preserve sound doctrine and their family's spiritual purity.  

Though that might be a noble sounding justification, it is often not the case.  Often on the grounds of aspiring to a simple "just give me Jesus" kind of faith, many believers shut down their minds all together to the point of where they do not only fail to familiarize themselves with the knowledge of their adversaries but also fall into appalling ignorance of Christian things as well.  

William Lane Craig points out in the essay "In Intellectual Neutral" that, on tests of generalized knowledge (think of the Jaywalking segments from the Tonight Show), Christian young people faired little better than their unbelieving counterparts.  Of these findings, Craig  concludes, "If Christian students are this ignorant of the general facts of history and geography then the chances are that they...are equally or even more ignorant of the facts of our own Christian heritage and doctrine...If we do not preserve the truth of our Christian heritage and doctrine, who will learn it for us (5)?"  <p>

Thus, when the Christian disengages from what are snidely referred to these days as the "Culture Wars" as if our way of life was somehow not worthy of preserving or fighting for, he does not succeed so much in keeping himself from deeds he considers impure such as heated disagreement and argument.  Rather the result of such surrender is ultimately the erosion of our civilization if Christians do not rise to the challenge in a variety of venues ranging from government, academia, and even the new social media such as blogs and podcasts.  If such happens, those trapped by the blinders of secularism may never otherwise be exposed to these ideas and concepts.  

As a neglected discipline in many Christian circles, it becomes an easy temptation for those enthusiastic to promote a more intellectually rigorous and vital expression of the faith to downplay more existentialist manifestations of it.  However, if anything, one thing that can be adapted from the Emergent Church movement is the need to be consistent and authentic in regards to how our lives should reflect closely the things that we say.  

In Ecclesiastes 1:9, scripture assures that there is nothing new under the sun.  Sean McDowell in the essay “Apologetics For An Emerging Generation” insists that, despite the complexities with which the issues dress themselves when confronting the inhabitants of the contemporary world, the young continue to ask the same but profoundly deep questions that they always have (260).  

Therefore, it remains essential for the Christian to remain grounded in the foundations of the faith as well as familiar with the assorted challenges always arising to undermine the faith once delivered unto the saints.

By Frederick Meekins

[monicc17-blog]

Performance

Hi Guys,

I wanted to start with saying that I really did not enjoy the topic of Performance Art at all. I found it to be very weird and sort of disturbing. Therefore, my views may differ from some of yours. Performance Art challenges the traditional visual art forms by coming up with new and sometimes controversial ways to get certain points and opinions to viewers. This form of art came to be in the 20th century, particularly the 1960′s. Many of their ideas and views were spiked with Futurism, Dada, and Surrealism.

Dada was extremely interesting to me, and sort of disturbing. Through a bit of research about Dada, I learned it was brought about to challenge ideas of “typical” or “normal” art found in museums, galleries, etc. The picture below clearly proves this point, as it is an absurd image that is hard and difficult to digest. I found myself having the same predicament with the artists mentioned this week.

Bree Newsome made news when, on June 28th, she climbed a flag pole and took down a Confederate flag in South Carolina. She ended up being arrested for her act of art. It was viewed as a media stunt, instead of an artistic performance. There was quite a bit of emotion behind the piece that was obviously not viewed or realized as such by many people. It was stated in the article that Newsome “acted as a metaphor for the dismantling of institutionalized racism.” After reading the article and that particular statement, I was able to make sense of her reason behind it-however I do not agree with the way she went about it. To me, if you risk persecution for your actions (or prosecution, for that matter,) it may not be worth it. Nonetheless, Performance Art is just that-artists that engage in this type of media do so to relay a particular message. As quoted by Favianna Rodriguez in the same article, “artists and other cultural workers are essential to creating significant and lasting social change.” With this quote, I will move to the next section-the artist interview and readings of Janine Antoni.

I started with reading the interview of Janine Antoni about “Moor” and “Touch.” I found her thoughts in these two pieces to be beautiful. She really digs deep in to an emotional, spiritual place in her body and soul to create pieces that are important to her. “Moor” was developed when she created a beautiful rope made of pieces from people she loved. They varied from fabric from her grandmother’s Christmas dress to electrical wires from friends. She also had many of her friends and loved ones involved in the making of her pieces, which was really neat to me. After the creation of “Moor,” she began to wonder how incredible it would be to physically walk on the rope she created. Then, she learned how to walk on a tight rope with the help of a circus and professional tight-rope trainer. “Touch” was created based upon this knowledge. She took her rope home to the Bahamas, and intricately placed it so the camera would view the rope, ocean, and horizon in the distance. Her thought was that sometimes, when dangerously walking and almost losing balance, she would touch the horizon. Antoni viewed that exact horizon growing up, and for her, the horizon meant endless possibilities, and reaching whatever she would want to in her lifetime.

Then, I watched her interview, and I was shocked. Her work with the lard and chocolate was almost appalling to me. Antoni made two sculptures of her face-one of chocolate and one of lard after contemplating how interesting it was that soap that cleans our bodies is made of a body. First of all, I would have never thought about that in my lifetime without watching this piece. I just can’t wrap my mind around it. She physically licked the chocolate sculpture of herself to ”feed herself,” and washed herself with the lard sculpture to bathe herself with herself. In the end, her point was to prove something about physical appearance and slowly erasing yourself or your body. It was a very interesting, different idea than anything I had ever thought of. Below are both of the pieces after the bathing and licking.

I also found the same to be true with the relevant artist I chose this week, Tehching Hsieh. I chose him from the information I learned through research. His father was an Atheist, while his mother was a devout Christian. I thought that his childhood life must have been complicated, just based upon that little bit of information. After his service in the army, he had an art show of his paintings. Shortly after that, he quit painting and chose to work more with his body. His performance action in 1973 was titled “Jump Piece” and depicted him literally jumping out of a building-which led him to break both of his ankles. In order for him to create the work he wanted, he risked grave danger and physical bodily harm. I found that many artists use their own bodies for performance art, regardless of the risks. However, there sometimes can be negative consequences to this, as in Hsieh’s situation. You couldn’t pay me enough money to convince me to jump out of a building, haha.

Thanks everyone,

Morgan

[collymore]

White and therefore always right!

By Stanley Collymore

  You’re white and, evidently in your case, totally useless!

And not just as it happens to society generally but also,

quite specifically and rather obvious too, to yourself.

However, for all of these appalling circumstances

and, as far as it can objectively be discerned or

properly understood from closely observing

you, you’re furthermore firmly and even

emphatically of the extremely and also

unambiguously fiery estimation that

as far as each one of the numerous

and distinctly dissimilar races who’re

currently and collectively living on this Planet Earth

that we mutually call home, and that together and

for the most part fall exactly under the sensed

and generally accepted judgement of being

labelled human, it’s only your own, and,

moreover, as you see it too, the added

benefit of your most treasured and

enormously revered skin colour,

that conjointly and acceptably

guarantee that you and your

white kind aren’t only and decidedly but also

correspondingly too, enormously superior

in all facets - that one can immediately

call to mind - to all other races and

ethnicities globally; regardless, it appears to be,

how evident and unquestionably transparent

is the authoritative conclusion which that

exceptionally ludicrous and definitely

discriminatory deduction of yours,

in faultless juxtaposition no less,

with recognizably concurring

persons who think and act

as you do, is undeniably

and idiotically wrong.

  Nevertheless, in your obsessive and utterly idiotic

lunacy, you ceaselessly persist to still puke out

and most amazingly believe your ludicrous

and incredibly senseless contention, that

simply because you’re a woman and

happen to have been born a white

Caucasian – handily omitting to

acknowledge in your errantly

twisted and delusional observations that you are

a pretty pathetic, on top of you likewise being

manifestly and breathtakingly a poor excuse,

if ever there was one, for a human being –

that by dint of being born white doesn't

automatically, as you acutely believe,

of itself unassailably confer on you,

either forever and so decisively, a

matchless and, to all intents and

purposes, an elite and premium

brand of exceptionalism, that,

of course, then translates as

fundamentally individual

concerns, to instinctively

and also exclusively too

transform for you into

that prized category

you're wont to see

as clarification of

an enduring and

cast-iron white

supremacism.

  © Stanley V. Collymore

9 July 2017.

    Author’s Remarks:

This poem and the accompanying article of the same name and nature that I’ve written and accordingly am presenting here for your personal examination, succinctly, unambiguously and most unapologetically sum up, and rather fittingly too even if I say so myself, my distinctly firm and objectively held views on the matter that I’m accordingly highlighting and, if anything, is an opinion that’s convincingly reinforced by the sickeningly evil and pathetically lowlife actions of JEMMA BEALE, a fantasist rape victim, who is now finally and publicly acknowledged as such, and following her recent court conviction for officially having made some FIFTEEN bogus rape accusations to the British police that resulted in the imprisonment of her entirely innocent victims and her even being compensated from the public purse with a sum of £11.000 Pounds Sterling in one instance for merely saying that that particular, and now known never to have taken place, rape had left her “totally devastated”, has finally been publicly exposed as the pathological liar that she is, fittingly convicted for the lying and multiple bogus rape accusations that she had made against her randomly selected male victims plus additional proven charges against her of wilful acts of perjury under oath in a court of law, and is presently, as I write, remanded in custody awaiting sentence for her disreputable, persistent and pernicious criminal behaviour.

  All well and good you may say and might even suitably agree that Jemma Beale is getting what she truly deserves and, consequently, that ought to be the end of this matter. But should it? For frankly, I don’t think so. And, what’s more, am firmly and conclusively of the belief that a significant portion of the overall blame in relation to this perfidious calamity should and must be directly laid at the feet of the local police force that incredibly, so incompetently dealt with this woman’s multiple false rape accusations. And in tandem with them too the Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP) that saw fit to recklessly and most idiotically submit over a sustained period of time some 15 distinctive and alleged rape allegations from this same woman, and solely on her own word, to the British courts’ attention where in turn they all led to successful prosecutions.

  This without seemingly, in the least, being curious about any of them; bothering to scrutinize these multiple allegations of hers to ascertain for themselves that they actually happened or, for that matter, in their specific case, quite patently too dim-witted to take cognizance of the proverbial penny having dropped that this evil lowlife and an exceedingly poor excuse for a human being was most cynically and deliberately conning all of them while, at the same time, purposefully and psychologically abusing, as well as intentionally and maliciously setting out to irretrievably ruin the reputations, job prospects and even the personal lives of those whom she’d sadistically and dementedly decided must be and, therefore, accordingly had chosen to be her hapless victims.

  Significantly too in all of this sickening charade Jemma Beale was quite well known to both her local police force, the DPP and one could even argue the courts that she attended to make her scurrilous and lying rape allegations against her innocent victims. And it’s not beyond the wit, one would have imagined, of all these various and highly paid public officials for at least one among their number to ask the obvious question of why is this woman being so routinely raped and furthermore by different men totally unknown to each other in any way and also on distinctly separate occasions and different locations? But evidently nothing of the kind didn’t cross the minds of these collective morons who seemingly couldn’t without instructions being given to them navigate their way out of a sodden paper bag. Nor did they ask, what to anyone with even a half-functioning brain would spontaneously have done, is why a woman who to all intents and purposes would have been massively outdone in every department, and simply for beauty alone, by the rear end of an elephant was such an irresistible draw for lecherous men who, without knowing her, nevertheless had this compulsive fixation to rape her?

  But cogent issues or persuasive arguments like these ones didn’t matter to the police, the DPP and their lawyers or even the courts involved, since they’d all made up their minds where guilt laid and had done so from the very start without even bothering on their part to assess the so-called evidence provided by JEMMA BEALE, prejudicially working on the longstanding tried and tested, racist white European and, particularly, British, system and that even an extremely dim-witted moron like Jemma Beale was completely aware of: “Who do you think the police, the DPP, the juries, the judges and per se the courts and white society generally are going to believe, you a Black or otherwise non-white person or ME a white, Caucasian woman?"

  And JEMMA BEALE was absolutely right in her assessment for having chosen her bevy of non-white victims to castigate as her rapists, with the police, DPP and the courts dutifully and quite faultlessly, and in step with their institutionalized racism, for there’s absolutely no other way that any sensible or rational person can describe the outcome, completely unprofessionally, with not a trace of legal or ethical impartiality and furthermore at every term fully with their backing and blessing bent over backwards in their bigoted hostility to accommodate in every respect the delusional, narcissistic and markedly prejudicial lunacy, attendant with their own, of Jemma Beale. Attesting to their mutually held and sick concept that being white, and irrespective of what the evidence is to the contrary, automatically and at all times makes you the consummately proud and worthy possessor of that racial identity both unquestionably and naturally unchallengeably too, right!

  Anne Marie Morris claims that her racist remarks were “unintentional”. Which prompts the very obvious question, to those who aren’t dim-witted that is, of how can something which you consciously and deliberately said, not in the heat of an argument or some unexpectedly provoked situation be ever unintentional? But we all know what Anne Marie Morris means. It was unintentional on her part and that of the other white trash lowlifes who were congregated with her for her racist remarks to ever find their way into the public domain. But they have! And as a Black man I really don’t give a fuck now, any more than I did when BORIS KAMAL: The Yid, Nazi-Zionist and incumbent UK regime Foreign Secretary, referred to Black people as “piccaninnies with watermelon smiles.”

  But no Black person with a worthwhile life would have risen to Boris Kamal’s utterly childish and deliberately provocative abuse and therefore retaliatorily and similarly insultingly refer to him and his kind as “snipped-dicks, Oedipus Rex fixated, obsessively money-grabbing, incestuously in-breeding and consummately delusional pillocks”, would they? And for the very simple reason that Blacks have heard these kinds of repetitive, boring and abusive remarks emanating from white trash Caucasians for a number of centuries, and we’re still here; and it’s like water off a duck’s back to us. But when you are as pathetic as these mother-fuckers are and of the ilk of ANNE MARIE MORRIS and BORIS KAMAL what they in their vitriol puke out towards us says more about themselves than it ever does or can about us.

  For essentially, although physically in the 21st Century, they’ve nothing whatsoever to positively contribute to it, and whether they recognize this or not their only salvation as they perceive it is to psychologically, and even physically in their rather sick and delusional minds, transport themselves to what they nonsensically regard as the unchallengeable and halcyon days when whites, in their demented minds, were the only people on Planet Earth that mattered and as a result determined and controlled everything on it that happened. In short, the Master Race and consequently didn’t have to worry about anything, because whatever they chose to think and subsequently did was, as far as they were concerned, the only things that mattered.

  Principally and for lowlifes like Jemma Beale, Boris Kamal and Anne Marie Morris, who are all markedly and from every psychological perspective lacking in genuine self-worth, a most ideal situation, since they can all enthusiastically rely on their race and skin colour, which to everyone else, apart from themselves and others like them who observably think and act the same way, are evidently characteristics that they certainly had nothing at all to do with in determining, in relation to themselves; just as everyone else, regardless of their race or colour, are equally in the same situation. But don’t tell them that as they’re too thick to actually comprehend what you’re really saying to them! And for some in the mainstream media to excuse the behaviour of Anne Marie Morris and Boris Kamal by saying that they went to Oxford University, my own reaction to that is: so what? And not least so because I know of several people who eschewed the offers for them to attend this privileged-elite-attracting cesspool, because they preferred to attend REAL universities and deal with NORMAL students and lecturers there.

  And even though it’s patently obvious that Jemma Beale, unlike Boris Kamal and Anne Marie Morris, didn't attend Oxford University the demonstrably obvious mind-set between the three of them is unmistakably obvious. Collective white trash blowing in the wind!